May 13, 2004, 06:37 PM
The Chron's version of “debate”
We understand from a recent statement by editor Jeff Cohen that the Chron fancies its editorial page a progressive leader.
That's all well and good for an editorial page, one supposes, but too much of that advocacy bleeds over into the news sections.
Take, for example, a recent story by Mike Tolson, with the headline Debate renewed over executing the mentally ill.
Generally, there are at least two sides to a debate. Sometimes there are multiple competing points of view.
From reading this story, I don't see any debate. Rather, the author takes up the case of cold blooded murderer Kelsey Patterson and his alleged mental illness, and proceeds to pound home the idea that good caring readers really ought not support the death penalty in his case.
There are quotes from Patterson's attorney (hard to imagine what he thinks) and plenty of speculation about the thoughts of “mental health advocates” as well as quotes. Indeed, every single quote in the article is in his defense.
The author didn't find one contrarian view to present. Not one law professor to argue that the law is being properly applied. Not one death penalty advocate to argue that Mr. Patterson does need to be held to account for his actions.
The Chron didn't present a debate with this article. They presented what they wanted you to think. Hit you over the head with it, actually. That's fine on the editorial pages, but the news pages ought not contain such blatant issue advocacy.
Permalink | Poor Chron Journalism | Previous Entry | Next Entry